Si�n James: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister to his new post? As chairman of the all-party group on rail in Wales, we are concerned about the number of services to south Wales and Wales in general. Our particular current concerns are about preserving rail services at ports and docks in constituencies such as mine, Swansea, East. Will the Minister meet the group to discuss those matters?

Chris Mole: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I spoke to the chief executive of the Highways Agency about the matter yesterday. He informed me that a joint strategic agreement on traffic incident management has been in existence since 2006, and that one of its aims is to improve clear-up times. The police must take as long as it takes to deal with what may be a potential crime scene, but the Highways Agency has helped them with technology that can rapidly determine and record evidence such as the position of vehicles. As I said earlier, following the completion of police work, traffic officers take over to ensure that the motorway is open as soon as possible.

Graham Stuart: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
	Does the Minister think that a community rail project could further improve the long-term viability of a reopened Beverley to York rail line, and will he accept an invitation from local campaigners for the reopening of that line to come to our area to hear the arguments in favour it and the benefits it would bring?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is right. The reason why she is able to quote those figures is that the Government asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the appalling pay inequity in that sector and make recommendations for the way forward. Let me assure my hon. Friend that when we get the Equality Bill through Committee, despite the best efforts of the Tories to block it, there will be an impact in that sector, too.

Vera Baird: The pay gap is 28.3 per cent. in the private sector and 22 per cent. in the public sector. The Tory figures leave out part-time workers. The Tories do that all the time, clearly thinking that part-time workers are some separate breed of second-class citizens, as they are mostly women. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made a long speech in Committee asserting that discrimination was a very minor reason for unequal pay, which is not what most trade unionists and others in the field believe. Even he did not say there was no discriminatory unequal pay, yet the Tories voted against the very measure that would tackle it.

Jo Swinson: I am glad that the Minister mentions Young Equals and I am sure he has read its excellent report, Making the case, which details harmful age discrimination against young people, so how can the Government justify ignoring that evidence and excluding under-18s from protections in the Equality Bill? [Official Report, 29 June 2009, Vol. 495, c. 1-2MC.]

David Hanson: At 10 o'clock this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement, in which he laid before the House this year's update to the national security strategy. Accompanying the strategy was the first national cybersecurity strategy for the United Kingdom. Last week, the Government presented to the House the Digital Britain strategy. This country is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities of the digital age, but we can seize those opportunities only if people are confident that they can operate safely in cyberspace.
	Every day, millions of people across the UKour constituentsrely on the services and information that make up cyberspace. Indeed, 65 per cent. of UK households have access to the internet, and the figure is growing by about 8 per cent. a year. The national security strategy, published for the first time by the Government last March and updated this year, sets out an honest and transparent appraisal of the risks that we face, including the threat that organised crime poses to our country. Organised crime costs us around 20 billion a year, and we have a duty to the British public and to British industry to take measures dramatically to reduce that cost.
	The Government also need to assess the threats from terrorist organisations and prepare our response to them; the public would expect no less. All those threats can arise in cyberspace. As the director general of the Security Service has said, a number of nations and organisations are
	trying to obtain political and economic intelligence at our expense
	and
	increasingly deploy sophisticated technical attacks, using the internet to penetrate computer networks.
	We know the importance that terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda and its affiliates, place on the internet and cyberspace, which are particularly important for propaganda reasons. We know that terrorists would like to be able to operate more effectively in cyberspace. I am not scaremongering, but we need to look at the issues. Our assessment at present is not that terrorists have the capability to mount attacks imminently, but that we must honourably prepare as terrorists become more sophisticated.
	Such threats from states or terrorists could affect critical national systems, but there is also a real threat to millions of ordinary citizensour constituentsas well as their transactions and the businesses for which they work. Online fraud generated some 52 billion worldwide in 2007. The average cost to companies of information security incidents is in the range of 10,000 to 20,000. For a large company, the cost can be as high as 1 million to 2 million. As the dependence on cyberspace grows, we need to ensure security, which is critical to the health of the nation.
	As I mentioned, today the Government published, in a written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first cybersecurity strategy. As a result, we will establish an office of cybersecurity in the Cabinet Office to lead on cybersecurity policy issues, and a cybersecurity operations centre, a multi-agency body, based alongside GCHQ in Cheltenham. That organisation will lead on operations and technical capabilities, which we will examine.
	As a result of the new strategy, we will develop a cyber industrial strategy for the UK's critical security needs, in the same way as we have a defence industrial strategy; we will develop cybersecurity skills for the UK, plugging existing gaps and creating more high-tech employment opportunities; we will make critical systems in the public and private sectors more resilient and enhance our ability to detect attack; we will develop international law and doctrines of national defence in cyberspace, working with other countries; we will consider better advice to business and citizens about the security-risk picture and the steps that they need to take to address it; and we will develop new strategies for tackling terrorist and criminal use of cyberspace with our colleagues in the Association of Chief Police Officers and its strategy on cybercrime, which is due out shortly.
	We plan emergency responses, and the new centre will test the UK's ability to respond to major attacks, which we obviously believe that we can prevent, but which we need to consider. As with our national security, it will be important that the Government's powers are used proportionately and in a way that is consistent with civil liberty issues, as I know the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would wish. So, from today, we will establish an ethics advisory group to advise on that issue, and I shall update the House on its membership when it is formed.
	The centres will be operational in September, and new funding will be announced before then to meet their obligations, building on existing resources that were allocated largely to intelligence agencies. Again, I shall report back to the House on those matters.
	The wider national security debate is important, and the Government have taken forward the good start that was made last year. We look ahead to the broad range of national security threats, and we look at how we can prevent them. Today, we have set out in the documents an updated analysis of the threats that we face, made commitments on what drives insecurity in the worldon conflict, energy, poverty and the impact of climate changeand published the cybersecurity strategy, which I hope will be the subject of some debate and interest.
	Britain depends very strongly on the dedicated work of the armed forces, the intelligence services, the police and other services in the support of those strategies. I pay tribute to them all for the courage that they display every day of the week in often very difficult circumstances. I commend the document to the House and hope that the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be read with interest by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister owes you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology for the public handling of this strategy. As we speak, the Prime Minister is at Detica, a cybersecurity company. Why is he not here making an oral statement? There is no more important responsibility of government than national security, and, for a key development in the critical area of cybersecurity to be trailed as it has, leading to the first occasion that you, Mr. Speaker, have granted an urgent question, is not only disgraceful but, more alarmingly, shambolic. The Ministers directing the strategy, who are supposed to keep us safe, cannot even manage the orderly public release of new policy.
	The lack of detail on cybersecurity in the national security strategy, which the Prime Minister presented last year, was an obvious area of weakness. The security industry publicly warned that the Government had severely underestimated the dangers that cyber attack poses and had accorded cybersecurity insufficient priority and budget. What has galvanised the Government into action? Has the threat from cyber attack grown in the past year, or has the swift and comprehensive response of the new American Administration made them realise that their priorities were wrong? It was an immediate priority for President Obama and, only four months into his Administration he was reporting on the results. How can we be confident that the strategy before us reflects the proper American sense of priority, rather than being only a pale imitation?
	How will the new office of cybersecurity and the new cybersecurity operations centre fit with the work of existing agencies? We already have a number of different agencies working in the area: the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the wider information assurance centre and the Communications Electronic Security Group, being the national technical authority for information assurance, which is based at GCHQ. All the above are already co-ordinated by a Cabinet Office-unit sponsor for information assurance. The Serious Organised Crime Agency and the police e-crime unit, based in the Metropolitan police, are responsible specifically for cybercrime.
	The Digital Britain report, which the Government published last week, announced the formation of a tripartite initiative, the tripartite internet crime and security initiative, which will bring together parliamentarians, Government and business. The Government are in danger of presiding over a patchwork muddle of different agencies and mandates, to which they have now added an ethics advisory group. It is sad that Ministers now need advice on ethics. Will the new director instigate an immediate review of the mandates and achievements of all the different agencies involved in cybersecurity, to avoid overlap and ensure the best use of resources?
	There is wholly insufficient time to examine the strategy through the means of an urgent question, but I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for commanding the Minister here today. Will the Government commit, at the earliest opportunity, to a full debate on the strategy, led by the Prime Minister and in Government time? We need a national security council with a dedicated staff and decision-making powers at the heart of the Government. We are not there yet.

Tom Brake: I support the official Opposition's tabling of an urgent question on this matter. Without it, we would not have been able to have a timely debate on the national security strategy or an opportunity to examine its implications. That would have been a major problem for the House.
	The strategy clearly has the potential to defend us, but it could also have a significant impact on our civil liberties. We have to take the Minister's word for it that what happened was a breach of an embargo, or possibly a leak, but I am sure that Members will be concerned that there has been a leak about the cybersecurity strategy, of all things.
	One reason that the Government have given for bringing forward the strategy is the growing threat posed by hostile states, terrorists and criminals. We do not deny that that threat exists and is growing, but they are described in very broad terms. What criteria have the Government used to define hostile states, terrorists and criminals? To give us an idea of the scale of the threat that is posed, can the Minister tell us anything about how many attacks there have been on our networks, for instance over the past 12 months?
	This Government have a rather illiberal and invasive overarching counter-terrorism strategy that includes such Orwellian measures as control orders. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the cybersecurity operations centre will not just be used for snooping on British citizens' internet use? In the cyber strategy, there is mention that the Government will work closely with civil liberties groups. Which groups does the Minister have in mind, and at what point are they likely to be involved in the process?
	Finally, as far as I can tell there is no impact assessment in relation to the proposals. What are the cost implications? We do not deny the need to have a cybersecurity strategy, but we need to be certain that it will not have an impact on our civil liberties. That is the reassurance that we are seeking from the Minister today.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome today's publication by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of a wide-ranging, cross-Government and cross-agency cyber security strategy. Given the significance that the Obama Administration have placed on cyber security, will my right hon. Friend the Minister outline how we will be able to work with our closest security ally to maximise our joint capability and minimise duplication?

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, but the way in which she appears to be presiding over House business at the moment does seem a tad shambolic. Last week, we were informed that the Government would be tabling today's motions in good time to give the House as much opportunity as possible to look over the proposals. However, nothing appeared on the Order Paper until yesterday. Then, on the same day, the Government inexplicably withdrew the motion that would have established a new ad hoc Committee on reforming this House. Will she advise us as to quite what is happening? If, as I suspect, the Government were embarrassed by the gulf between the Prime Minister's announcement and the proposed remit of the Committee, which was so narrow as to render the whole exercise absurd, why did not the Government simply support the amendments on the Order Paper that would have widened the Committee's scope and spared the right hon. and learned Lady's blushes? Or is the real truth that this whole episode was dreamt up in the No. 10 bunker merely to fill a space in a prime ministerial press release? When will the Committee now be established?
	On the new Parliamentary Standards Bill, which we will debate in its entirety next week, will the Leader of the House give her guarantee that issues of privilege will not be discussed by the House at the Bill's Committee stage until the Clerk of the House has given evidence to the Justice Select Committee, as I believe he is scheduled to do on Tuesday?
	May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the status of the Government's policy on identity cards? Four statutory instruments on ID cards were due to be debated last week, but then  The Sunday Times reportedcorrectly, as it turned outthat they were to be shelved for a month. In view of your important and welcome statement on ministerial statements yesterday, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. and learned Lady now promise that the Home Secretary will come to Parliament to clarify here what Ministers have been briefing in privatenamely, that the Government realise that they are on to a loser and are getting ready to perform yet another major policy U-turn?
	Similarly, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm the mysterious whereabouts of the Postal Services Bill, on which the Business Secretary has staked his reputation and, along with it, the Prime Minister's career? I have asked about this twice before and have twice received inadequate answers. There are only 16 sitting days left before the summer recess. The Bill's First Reading was over four weeks ago and, as the right hon. and learned Lady knows, Second Reading would normally follow swiftly behind. Is the Bill going to be delivered from the upper House or has itas I heard hon. Members saying just a few seconds agobeen permanently lost in the post?
	In the provisional business that the right hon. and learned Lady announced last week, the Child Poverty Bill was scheduled for this coming Monday. Now that we are going to be debating the Parliamentary Standards Bill on Monday instead, will she give us a commitment that the House will indeed debate this important Bill before the summer recess? We on the Opposition Benches are full of contributions that we wish to make to the legislation. The issue is all the more important in the light of yesterday's Office for National Statistics figures on the level of deprivation facing children growing up in London, nearly a quarter of whom are living in households where no one is working and which are plagued by obesity and crime. As a Member who represents an inner-London borough, and for the sake of those whom the legislation seeks to protect, may I ask the Leader of the House to guarantee not to lose sight of the Bill, and to bring it to the House as soon as possible?
	Given the Prime Minister's woeful performance at questions yesterday, may we have a full and urgent statement from him on financial honesty in the Government? Yesterday morning, Britain was found to be facing the biggest budget deficit in the world. At lunchtime, the Prime Minister's attempts to defend himself in the Commons ended in ridicule. In the afternoon, the Governor of the Bank of England complained that he had been left in the dark about important aspects of Government policy, and delivered the final blow by calling on the Government to set tougher targets on the UK's extraordinary debt levels. Is it not clear that the longer the Prime Minister deludes himself about being in power, the longer it will take the UK to recover?
	Finally, may I simply note that, this week, we are celebrating the second anniversary of the right hon. and learned Lady's ascension to her position as Leader of the House? I will send her a card saying Now we are two. Members may take that to mean anything they wish.

Harriet Harman: The shadow Leader of the House asked about the motion on the Committee. The intention is that this Committee of the House will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and that it will consider the improvement of the processes for the Government being held to account by Members of this House. We tabled a motion, and amendments to it were tabled. We considered the amendments; in fact, more amendments have been tabled this morning. If we are trying to achieve consensus across the House, I think that it is right and proper that, instead of ploughing on with our resolution, we should listen to what is being said and see whether we can take on board the different points of view and proceed on a basis of consensus.
	The shadow Leader of the House told everyone that he was a new man, but is it not quintessentially old politics to insist that we do not need to listen? As Leader of the House, it is important for me to listen to hon. Members when they table amendments, and to take into account what they suggest. I do not think that that is the sign of a shambles; it is the sign of how the Leader of the House should proceed. I do not think that it is a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to hearI will talk to him and all other hon. Members about thisthat we will proceed to bring forward a resolution, before the House rises, on which I hope that the whole House can agree, so that we can set up the Committee and improve the way in which the House holds the Government to account.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Parliamentary Standards Bill. He has seen it; it has been published, and it will be debated on the Floor of the House over three days. He will see from the face of the Bill that the question of parliamentary privilege is not an issue in that Bill, so that is not a question that hon. Members need to concern themselves with. Essentially, the Parliamentary Standards Bill sets up an authority to deal with our allowances to ensure that they are established and administered independently and that the public can have confidence that that is the case. It will not trample on the question of privilege.
	On ID cards, there is no change in Government policy. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Home Secretary keeps the matter under review at all times. If there is any change in policy, the House will be kept updated. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced biometric ID cards for foreign nationals, and I hope he supports that, as it is not only important for security, but speeds up the sorting out of identity questions so that access to visas, for example, is made easier for people who are genuinely who they say they are. He also knows that we are introducing this approach for air-side in airports, and that there will be no compulsory ID cards for everybody else without a vote in this House. If there is any change on thatI do not expect that there will bethe Home Secretary will keep the House informed. He keeps the matter under review, as I said.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Postal Services Bill. It is not announced for next week's business or that of the week after. He will see that we had to make a space for three days for the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I think it is important, with a crisis of public confidence in the House, to bring forward this measure and address it quickly. At the same time, to ensure proper scrutiny of the measure while bringing it in expeditiously, we need to give adequate time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House. That is why debate of the Parliamentary Standards Bill will be across three days.
	The Child Poverty Bill is not in the business that I have announced, but I hope that it will be brought in before the summer recess. I expect that to be the case, and on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that the Opposition will vote for it when it comes before the House.
	On the economy, it remains the No. 1 priority of the Government to take action to protect businesses and people's jobs, and to make sure that if people lose their job, they do not also lose their home. We will intervene and take action in all those respects, and we will make sure that we grow the economy out of recession rather than cut it, which is not the way to take us out of the recession.

Gordon Prentice: On 15 June, for the first time ever, more Labour MPs voted against the Government than with them, to close the loophole that allows tax exiles to bankroll UK political parties. Will my friend seek to reverse that vote when the Political Parties and Elections Bill comes back to the Commons, and will we get that Bill before the recess?

Richard Younger-Ross: May I say that the Conservative Members who have spoken about minimum payments are entirely right?
	Can I ask the Leader of the House about English Heritage's launch yesterday of Heritage at Risk? It cites one in seven conservation areas as being at risk. Given the Government's failure to bring in a heritage protection Bill last year, can we have an urgent debate on what other measures can be taken to protect listed and other buildings that are deteriorating and being demolished because of lack of action by the Government?

Harriet Harman: I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. It is important that a democratically elected Government are able to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to get their business through the House, and that the House of elected Members makes sure that that legislation is properly scrutinised and that the Government continue to be held to account. That is why I hope that the Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), will be able to look across those issues.

Harriet Harman: Negative equity is a particular concern if people cannot afford to stay in their homes and are forced to sell them at a very low market value. That is why we have taken a range of actions to protect people being forced into repossession, including the support for mortgage interest scheme, the homeowner mortgage support scheme, the mortgage rescue scheme, the repossession prevention fund and the mortgage pre-action protocol. Repossessions, although rising, are still way below the level in the previous recession, and we are taking all the action that we can to prevent them from rising faster.

Angus MacNeil: May I draw attention to early-day motion 1739 in my name on fishermen from the Philippines who work on the west coast of Scotland?
	 [That this House strongly believes that the Government should quickly reconsider its policies regarding fishermen from the Philippines working in the waters around the Outer Hebrides and west coast of Scotland by establishing a six month moratorium on deportations; notes that these fishermen are not unskilled workers as they need several qualifications to engage in the fishing profession while filling a severe shortage of skilled fishing labour in the Western Isles; and further notes that deporting these fishermen will be yet another blow to the Isles as the Government is already planning to close the Hebrides Range which will result in the loss of almost 120 jobs.]
	Fishermen's leaders are calling daily to tell me that fishermen are being threatened with deportation or are not being allowed back to their boats from the Philippines. As a result, at the time of credit crunch, boats are having to tie up. May we have a debate on the importance of beneficial immigration into the UK and, indeed, the high regard with which fishermen from the Philippines are held on the west coast of Scotland?

Harriet Harman: The overall performance of the UK Border Agency has improved over the years. I know that as the Member with the most immigration cases of anyone in the House. Certainly, the MPs hotline has been very helpful to many hon. Members over the year. However, the hon. Gentleman has a particular case, which he has now raised on the Floor of the House. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the immigration Minister forthwith.

Gwyn Prosser: When can we have a debate on the free passage of passengers and freight vessels across the channel into Dover? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the French unions are attempting to disrupt the passage of British flagged, British crewed ships, ridiculously describing them as flags of convenience?

Alan Reid: This morning's announcement by Consumer Focus that it has found that energy companies are not passing on the full decline in wholesale prices to consumers must be investigated. May we have an urgent statement from the energy Minister to get to the bottom of that, as it appears that every consumer is being overcharged by an average of 74? Can we ensure that energy companies are forced to pass every penny of the decline in wholesale prices on to the consumer?

Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the situation in Iran is dire, with the Government having rigged the presidential election and a number of pro-democracy demonstrators being either killed or imprisoned. She will also be aware that independent informed commentators feel that our Government could have been more robust in the defence of democracy. To put matters right, will she ensure that the Foreign Secretary comes to House next week to make a further statement on the situation in Iran?

Robert Wilson: The Leader of the House may remember that during business questions on 4 June I asked for a topical debate on how we could help Pakistan and its 3 million displaced people. At the time, the right hon. Lady thought that that was a good proposal. I understand from her statement today that there is a space on 9 July. May we please have the debate then?

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on corporate responsibility to our communities and, indeed, our country? My right hon. Friend will be aware that today hundreds of workers are on strike in power stations throughout the country. That has been caused by the action of Total, the oil company, which has brought in foreign nationals to undermine the terms and conditions of indigenous workers. May I ask my right hon. Friend to use her good offices and ask Total to act responsibly? If it does not, others will be encouraged to vote for extreme parties such as the British National party.

Lindsay Hoyle: A few months ago I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the plight of charities, particularly the hospice movement, and the need for a debate on the subject. I wonder whether she has heard about the problems of Derian house, a children's hospice in my constituency that serves children from Scotland and throughout England. It has introduced a new service, which cost well over 1 million. The money was raised locally, but the VAT has not been given back to the charity, and 350,000 must now be found. May we have a debate about the hospice movement, and about the plight of Derian house in particular?

Harriet Harman: I shall look for an opportunity for the House to debate the hospice movement; it is an important issue, and a number of Members have raised it. As for the children's hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency, there is no need to wait for a debate. I shall bring the matter to the attention of health Ministers, and try to establish whether it can be resolved more promptly.

Ian Cawsey: About 15 minutes ago, Corus issued a statement confirming its proposal to cut more than 2,000 jobs in its long products section, including 500 white-collar managerial jobs. Most of those jobs will be lost at the Scunthorpe works in north Lincolnshire. Given all that the work force have done to try to weather the storm and stay together during the recession, will my right hon. Friend organise an urgent debate on Government support for the steel industry? Will she also ensure that the Business Secretary meets Members from the affected constituencies, along with the trade unions, so that we can do what we can to keep intact a first-rate competitive British steel industry?

Harriet Harman: The matter is of great concern to, above all, my hon. Friend's constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies, but it is a matter of national importance as well. I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of business Ministers, and will expect them to meet him and other Members immediately to discuss this important issue.

Harriet Harman: If notice is given of a ministerial statement and Members come to the House to hear that, it is very important that the first people who are able to ask questions about that statement are Members of this House, not journalists, and therefore it is important that the statement to the House comes first, before it is put into the newspapers or broadcast on radio or television. The matter of Bills is slightly different. I heard what the Speaker said yesterday, and it goes without saying that what he said is, by definition, correct, but, by the time that we reach the presentation of a Bill, there has, usually, been extensive consultation. For instance, I had already made a statement to the House setting out the bones of the Parliamentary Standards Bill before the details of it were published. It is important to try to ensure that the House is respected and that it gets to hear about matters first, but in respect of the publication of Bills there has often already been a consultation process and it is not quite so easy to draw the line. Wherever the line is drawn, however, I hope that I and other Members will stay on the right side of it.

Harriet Harman: I agree that this is an important measure. What we all need to bear in mind, however, is the need for a balance between having proper scrutiny of these important measures and getting the independent Parliamentary Standards Authority set up and operating without undue delay. I think that having an opportunity to debate the issue on the Floor of the House across three days should give enough time to address what is a relatively short and focused Bill that essentially sets up the independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and gives it the power to run our allowances. Debate across three days should be enough time for us to be satisfied that we have properly and thoroughly scrutinised the Bill.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will know, on today's Order Paper there are a series of motions, beginning with motion 6, relating to the timing and holding of regional Grand Committees. Item five of the agenda for the Chairmen's Panel next week states that the panel may wish to discuss the planned meetings of regional Grand Committees debated in the House on Thursday 25 June. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are not able to debate these motions because the Government have said they should not be subject to debate, notwithstanding the fact that there will be plenty of time today for such a debate. I also understand that it is not even possible for us to seek to amend these motions, notwithstanding that there has not been any consultation with any members of those Committees on the proposed dates for those meetings. In the case of the South West Regional Grand Committee, of which I am a member by virtue of having been elected to represent Christchurch, the meeting is due to take place during the family school holidays and that has not been the subject of any consultation. Is this not an intolerable state of affairs, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and how can you help Back Benchers to have some power over these matters?

Shailesh Vara: We have the extraordinary situation in which we are discussing a business motion, but a substantial part of the business has already been withdrawn by the Government. Given that the motion to establish a Select Committee on the reform of the House was withdrawn yesterdaythe same day that it was tabledthe House will have much more time than it would otherwise have had to discuss the remaining motions.
	May I put on the record my agreement with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and say that it is regrettable that we will not have the opportunity to debate the motions on the Regional Committees, especially as there has been no consultation on them? That means that Members will have more than enough time to make their views plain on the proposal to establish a Regional Select Committee for London, as well as to comment on the motion to change the Select Committee structure that follows the recent reshuffle and consequent changes to Departments.
	I see no reason why we will not have enough time to consider the proposal to have a science and technology Committee, a point that was made at last week's business questions by many hon. Members. We should also have more than enough time to debate the motion and amendment on parliamentary pensions. Following the Government's U-turn last night on their proposals, we all look forward to the Leader of the House explaining her new position. It is not the intention of the Opposition to put the business motion to a Division, but this motion shows the Government's complete disarray.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Consultation is the key, and it is clear that it is not taking place between occupants of the Front Benches or with Back Benchers on key procedural matters. If the Deputy Leader of the House is too stubborn to admit that she has made a mistake on this occasion, perhaps she will reflect on the fact that this is causing immense disquiet among Back Benchers, who feel left out of the loop. They have been presented with a fait accomplithe motions that cannot be amendedand are frustrated to note that the Government are wasting the House's time at the same time as they are forcing legislation through on tight timetables.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will agree that these are issues of immense gravity and seriousness, and go to the heart of the question whether this is a Chamber of the legislature or just somewhere for the Executive to do their own thing.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Harriet Harman: I will press on with my speech, if I may.
	Since March 2009, Regional Select Committees have been undertaking their work. Following the agreement of the House, all the Committees have been set up, they have members and they have selected Chairs. All have announced their first inquiries. All are considering some aspect of the recession's effect on the regional economy, and the response of Government and agencies to that. They have completed the written evidence stages and are now hearing oral evidence. By the summer recess, the Committees will have held some 20 public evidence sessions.
	One important aspect of the work of these Committees is their capacity to take evidence from a wide range of stakeholders in the specific region, achieving important locally focused engagement. Meetings have taken place across the English regions under the purview of the Regional Select Committeesfor example, in Barnsley, Liverpool, Reading, Gateshead and Swindon.
	Many regional organisations, such as the regional branches of the Federation of Small Businesses, the regional organisation of the CBI, the citizens advice bureaux and the learning and skills councils, together with representatives of industry and banking, have appeared before the Regional Select Committees to offer their expert opinions on how their region is coping with the downturn, the effectiveness of public policy in the region and what is needed to support the recovery in that region. Key Government agencies with a role in delivering the Government response to the recession, such as the regional development agencies and Government offices, and regional Ministers, have also contributed to the investigations undertaken by the Committees.
	We look forward to the reports from the Regional Select Committees in the coming weeks and months, and to considering how the relevant lessons learned from across the country can help to ensure effective accountability of both policy and spending in the face of the current economic difficulties and that, for the people in each region, the necessary effective action is delivered.
	In light of the experience of the Committees, it is now right to bring forward the motion to establish a Select Committee for London. We propose that the London Select Committee should have the same powers and composition as those of the other Select Committees for the regions. As I said, there are different governance arrangements in London, such as an elected Mayor and the London assembly. Some of the regional bodies, such as Transport for London and the London Development Agency, are accountable to the Mayor and subject to scrutiny from the assembly. However, there are many important areas of national policy on public services that impact on Londonincluding health, and crime reductionand are the responsibility of Ministers as well as the London boroughs.
	The Government retain considerable responsibility for delivery by many key agencies and non-departmental public bodies operating in London, including NHS London, the learning and skills council, Jobcentre Plus and Her Majesty's Courts Service and Prison Service. Although we acknowledge the differences between London and other regions, London should not be denied the opportunity afforded to other regions to hold such bodies to account, on Londoners' behalf, through their Members of Parliament.

Andrew Dismore: A very good example of that is the current review of acute stroke and major trauma services going on within NHS London, in which the boroughs are advancing different positions. As a regional issue that is below the radar of the Select Committee on Health, is that not an ideal example of how a London Committee could do some value-added work to hold NHS London to account and check whether those proposals are indeed in the interests of Londoners?

Justine Greening: I suppose that I have two responses to that. First, Back Benchers can hold Ministers to account: as an Opposition Back Bencher, I think that I can hold Ministers to account on London issues such as Heathrow as well as anyone. Secondly, although the hon. Lady is right that we need more accountability, why can we not get that through having London questions? Why spend several hundred thousand pounds on a Regional Select Committee for London when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, when people want not another talking shop but direct and immediate representation, with hon. Members being able to ask questions and get answers? Surely we should be trying that first to see whether it works.

Justine Greening: Approximately 60-plus MPs will not be able to be part of any London Regional Select Committee because it will have only nine members. A London MP who does not belong to that Regional Select Committee will not have the same opportunities as would be provided by a London Question Time.
	If the objective is to scrutinise policy as it affects London, that is already fulfilled by existing Select Committees, as some of the reports undertaken over the past five years or so demonstrate. For example, the Transport Committee has produced reports on the London congestion charge and the performance of London Underground, while the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has done one on the London Olympics. The former Education and Skills Committee did a report on skills in London, while the Home Affairs Committee has produced a report on counterterrorism and community relations in the aftermath of the London bombings. Only a couple of weeks ago, we were in this Chamber debating the report from the Home Affairs Committee on knife crime that had a clear resonance for London.
	There is nothing to prevent Select Committees from looking at London issues where they are of real importance, and they do that already.

Clive Efford: One of the arguments that the hon. Lady puts for a London Committee is based on the inaccurate information she has just given about post office closures across London. If we had had the opportunity to scrutinise such proposals as a London-wide body, we might have had more success in protecting post offices. Is she seriously saying that as a London Member of Parliament she does not want a say on strategic issues that involve a number of Departments, and possibly the Mayor and city hall as well, and to come up with reports to try to guide the Government and the Mayor in the direction the people we represent want us to take?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the importance of stroke services and major trauma centres, but he has not explained why a London Select Committee will be more effective in highlighting those issues than the Great London assembly, which his Government created.

[Relevant documents:  The Fourth Special Report from the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills  Committee, on the future of science scrutiny following the merger of DIUS and  BERR, HC 662, is relevant. ]

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
	 A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
	(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows
	(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and
	(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:
	
		
			 Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 11 
			 Science and Technology Government Office for Science 14 
		
	
	 B. RELATED PROVISIONS
	(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Business and Enterprise Committee and of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, respectively.
	(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Business and Enterprise and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, respectively.
	 C. LIAISON COMMITTEE
	(4) That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills' and inserting, in the appropriate places, 'Business, Innovation and Skills' and 'Science and Technology'.
	 D. EUROPEAN COMMITTEES
	(5) That Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) in respect of European Standing Committee C, 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities and Skills' and inserting 'Business, Innovation and Skills'.

Evan Harris: Like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I am a former member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the current Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. I welcome what the Minister said, particularly her interpretation that it should be possible for the Committee to consider cross-cutting how science is dealt with across Government Departments. As she said, the focus on evidence-based policy making means that there is a role to play in scrutinising the Government carefully in respect of their treatment of evidence at large across Departments. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this motion today.

Barbara Keeley: Members are running just ahead of where I am in my comments, and I will come to that in a moment. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
	I have outlined the changes necessary to limit the impact on the taxpayer of increases in the cost of the parliamentary pension scheme. The interim measures in the motion will enact the earlier decisions made by the House to cap the Exchequer contribution. The Government were already considering further measures to avoid an increase in Exchequer contributions from the pre-April 2009 level. The amendment is consistent with that further consideration. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is therefore content to return with further proposals to ensure that the Exchequer's contribution this year does not exceed that of last year. Because all these measures affect the current year, and because there are many detailed questions to answer, I am sure that it will assist Members to know the extent of their contributions to the scheme when we return to the debate. We will do that as soon as possible, and we will present all the various options that could make the freeze happen.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving the Government's position on these two motions. As she said, we are discussing the establishment of a dedicated Select Committee on science and some changes to the parliamentary pension scheme, to which an amendment has been tabled, primarily by the Liberal Democrats.
	The changes to the machinery of government in the last reshuffle were, I fear, made in a hurry, and in many respects for all the worst reasons. Because the Prime Minister did not have the power to change his top team as he wished, he had to satisfy a clash of ministerial egos by carving up a Department completely on the hoofso much so that some civil servants returned to their desks after lunch to find that their Department had been abolished in the meantime. As I am afraid is often the case in reshuffles, no serious thought was given to the implications for hugely important areas of policy on the back of the reshuffle that was suddenly conducted.
	In this case, I think we all accept that the biggest loser, apart from some individuals, was science. When the Prime Minister took up his post in July 2007, he broke up the Department for Trade and Industry and shoved science into the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. As a result, the Science and Technology Committee was abolished and subsumed into the wider Committee on that Department, despite the serious protestations and concerns of the science community.
	In the Prime Minister's latest Cabinet reshuffle, science became a bit of a plaything of the noble Lord Mandelson, and was seen right from the start as being just one part of an over-inflated and largely unaccountable department. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has 12 Ministers in all, half of whomincluding the supposed science Ministerare not in this House. The latest report of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills made it clear that because the Committee's remit was stretched so wide, it had struggled to give Government science policy the level of scrutiny that it deserved. The new DBIS Committee, being even larger, would have been totally unable to handle the scale of the issues at hand, as it will already have to deal with the Royal Mail and EU regulation, along with universities and measures to stimulate manufacturing.
	There are two reasons why it is particularly important at this time to scrutinise the Government's spending and activity on science and technology. First, as the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee said, there is a widespread view that British technology and its research and innovation can help us climb out of this recession. The weakness of the pound is providing a much needed boost for manufacturing opportunities. Although a weak pound is not good for everyone, the Government should be encouraging manufacturers to seize the initiative by investing in research and development. Secondly, science will be central to Britain's ability to respond to the major challenges of the future, from climate change to tackling swine flu or any other form of pandemic flu.
	The creation of a new Select Committee on Science and Technology is therefore an important step in holding the Government to account and ensuring that science policy is not merely a departmental addendum. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has been ardent in his campaigning for such a Committee. We welcome the decision and hope that the Committee will go about its work with all the energy and enthusiasm that this area of activity merits.
	Let me turn to pensions. The question of pensions generally is one of the most potent areas of public debate. Ten years ago we had some of the best pensions in the world; now we have some of the worst. The public sector seems to do far better than the private sector. In the private sector, which used to have many amply funded final salary schemes, the vast majority of schemes, if they have not closed already, are heading towards the closure that their funding now requires. In the middle of all that and all the difficulties that we have faced over the past few weeks, this House looks as though it has one of the most protected and generous schemes, compared with anybody else. We have the trustee of the scheme on our Benches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who will go into the details more than me.

Alan Duncan: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are many arguments surrounding the scheme, many of which are difficult to put in the current climate of public opinion. By and large, the scheme would have been totally self-funding, had the Government not taken such a long contributions holiday. The Minister has today made the point that the tenure of Members, unlike others in the public sector, is quite short, at only 10 or 11 years. Indeed, the final salary is exactly the same in one's 30th year in this place as it is on the day one is first elected. In that sense, there is no progression through the ranks of seniority, which would otherwise dramatically add to the pay-out made.
	All those arguments are understood, but we have to accept that we are living at a time when, given the position in the public sector and the private sector, our pension scheme sticks out like a sore thumb. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to wind up the scheme for new entrants. In the mean time, however, we have to look at its funding, its benefits and its terms and conditions, to which end the Government have tabled their motion today.
	One element will be welcomed by the public, which is that we are going to contribute more out of our pay packets. However, there is another, unfortunate aspect, which is that we are in the middle of a number of changing forces, which would have made it better for the Government not to have tabled anything at all just at the moment. The trustees are looking at the scheme in detail, as is the Senior Salaries Review Body. In the middle of all that, the Government have tabled today's motion, but at the same time, they are asking the Exchequer to contribute more. That is what people find difficult.
	The Government could have looked at alternatives. The main reason, above all others, why the actuaries looked at the arithmetic and decided that the fund needs more money is that former membersand, as the predictions of the actuaries go, existing and future membersare living longer. The issue is longevity much more than it is the value of the fund. At a time when the Government intend to raise the state pension age, it looks odd that they have not considered, as their first priority, raising the age at which former members can benefit from the pay-out.

David Heath: I shall deal first with the points about the machinery of government. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has echoed things that I have said in the past about the way in which the Government changes departmental nomenclature and reorganises desks and offices apparently on a whim, without any thought for the consequences of those moves. It worries me that we so regularly see changes to the structure of Government Departments that appear to be based mainly on the desire for titles for those in the Cabinet, rather than on a genuine cost-benefit analysis of how they will make the Government run better.
	The reason for the changes that we are debating today is that that which was cast asunder has now been reunited, all in order to add to the splendour of the titles of thewhat is called now?the First Secretary of State. I think that that is now the principal title of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or wherever it was

David Heath: I am not sure whether the noble Lord Mandelson builds many bridges, but we shall see.
	I do not think that this is the right way of doing business. I hope that we will eventually reach a point at which, if a Prime Minister wishes to change the structure of government, he will argue the case properly by putting a paper before the House and allowing Select Committees to consider the consequences, before then proceeding on a basis of knowledge and understanding of the properly projected advantages and disadvantages, rather than on the rather haphazard basis that we have at the moment.
	Having said all that, these changes have been made and we need to respond to them in regard to the way in which we organise the Committees of the House. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I have been discussing the consequences of the changes for the Science and Technology Committee. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Leader of the House did not immediately see the strength of the argument and just accept what was a perfectly proper request, particularly as it was backed upas the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East saidby the learned societies, which know a thing or two about these matters.
	The Science and Technology Committee, before it was renamed, was an ornament to the House. It was a very valuable body. I served on it for three years in what I like to think of as its golden age. It was a wonderful Committee, precisely because it did not have to spend all its time looking at the activities of a particular Department and because it could range so widely over the scientific and technological aspects of the way in which the Government operate and pick out the areas in which it had particular expertise, or draw on such expertise, in order to inform the House and the Government. That is why the terms of reference are so important. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House expanded on the Committee's role in her own words as it is not said on paper. I hope that some sort of Pepper  v. Hart procedure will be adopted in the House, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the range of the Committee's activities.
	In its previous manifestation, the Science and Technology Committee sometimes ran into difficulties. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will remember, we received a very dusty response from the then Home Secretary when we were looking at aspects of the scientific response to terrorism. He made it very clear that he did not think that this was anything to do with the Science and Technology Committee and asked us please to poke our noses somewhere else rather than in his Department. He not only discouraged us from looking at what the Home Office was doing, but he actually put pressure on the Department for Transport to ensure that we did not know what that Department was doing either.
	I hope that it will be very clearly understood in Government that the Science and Technology Committee has a roving brief, that it must be able to follow its nose in deciding what is appropriate for it to look at and that it must be able to define its own role. If it does so, it will be able to perform the very useful tasks that it has done previously and we should wholly welcome that.
	In moving on to deal with pensions, let me say immediately that for me to talk about that subject in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) or the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is nonsense; I have nothing like their expertise and I will not pretend to have it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon will therefore explain the consequences of his amendment himself.
	I was a little surprised to read in some of this morning's newspapers that the initiative to amend the pensions motion came from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). When I looked at the amendment, I could not see his name. I could see the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon and for Twickenham, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but not the name of the right hon. Member for Witney, so I wondered how he could have been responsible for the Government's change of heart [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton can explain.

Jo Swinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my welcome for the Government's acceptance of the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). It is surely vital for the House to reduce the costs to the taxpayerboth in the short term and, as the Deputy Leader of the House pointed out, in the medium term, hopefully as a result of the Senior Salaries Review Board reviewbecause it is simply unsustainable for us as MPs continually to go back to the taxpayer asking for more money for our pensions. It is unsustainable in terms of MPs' pensions and, ultimately, with so many people living longer, that kind of action is will be unsustainable in terms of public sector pensions more generally.

Andrew Love: I have listened carefully to the debate, which seems to be ranging into parliamentary pensions under review by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Should Members of Parliament accept that review in totality before it reports?

David Drew: I want to elaborate on my intervention on the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). However, I start by saying that I welcome the Government's new-found heart on the Science and Technology Committee. I wish that every success and hope that we can call it the Ian Gibson Memorial Committee, although that might be too controversial at the moment.
	We do ourselves a great disservice. A canard has been allowed to spread, deliberately and maliciously, that we have an all-singing, all-dancing, most wonderful pension scheme that cannot be improved on, and that we must feel really guilty about anything to do with it and must never argue back that it is a high-contribution scheme, which has evolved over time and takes account of many of the frailties of people who serve in the House. It has to be looked at from the position that many do not do well out of the parliamentary scheme.
	My starting point is that although the average time of service is 12 and a bit years, which some of us have just about reached, many hon. Members do not serve anything like that time. Many people come into politics, particularly parliamentary politics, who have made enormous sacrifices in their lives. They do not have other pensions to fall back on. I know from personal experience, having talked to people who retired at the last election, that the pension on which they were relying from this place was effectively the only decent pension they got, but of course it was only for the time that they served here.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I always thought it the epitome of madness that when more money was available, we imposed a cap, so that when we were then in a time of difficulty, we never had enough money because no surplus had been built up in the better times. I never saw the logic in that, but that is a piece of history.

John Butterfill: I think I do. May I come to that in due course? I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and if he does not understand when I explain it then I shall have to apologise to him at that time.
	A very substantial Government contribution was necessary to bring a deficit back in line with where it should have been. It arose from the failure to contribute the correct amount, as originally advised by the Government Actuary. The Government Actuary, to be fair to the Government, said, Well, things are going rather well. The stock market is looking pretty good, so you can probably tolerate not paying in. That is one of the problems with the way in which pensions have been funded in the past, and I want to expand on that point a little further, if I may.
	If, at the previous valuation, the Government had been making the correct contributions, the Members' scheme would have been about 5 million in surplus rather than nearly 50 million in deficit. That, I think, is worth bearing in mind as background. Today, the Government Actuary is saying, Now we have to take into account longevity. We have reviewed the problems of longevity and we have found that we probably have not made enough allowance for the improvement in people's lives over many years. We need to adjust for the fact that people are likely to live longer. The impact of that is to reverse the situation. We now need to raise, probably, another 50 million or thereabouts. There will have to be increased contributions to cover that element. That problem would not be there if we had dealt with it earlier.
	My view is that the present system of valuing pensions, whether in the public sector or the private sector, is stark raving bonkers. We ask actuaries, every three years, to value each scheme and to try to see where the pitfalls or benefits might lie. When times are really good and stock markets are going up, they say that we should not bother to put any money in because we will come through with a surplus. When times get bad, they say, Gosh, you've got to put a shedload of money in. Times are terrible, and you have to put more money in. That is at a time when most schemescertainly those in the private sectorhave not got any money, because times are bad.
	That has to be a crazy way of dealing with final salary pension schemes. It seems to me that the actuarial profession should, over many years, have been taking a long-term view. Pensions do not go from year to yearthey cover 30 or 40 years at a time. We should therefore establish what the appropriate contribution should be from the scheme sponsorand, indeed, from the scheme members if they also contribute, as we doover a period of 30 years or more.
	Those figures are available. Quite a few analyses have been performed over the past 30 or 40 years that make it clear what has been going on, despite all the huge ups and downs in the markets. They show that schemes that have invested in shares have gone up by about 8 per cent. per annum, while those that have invested in property have gone up by about 7 per cent. and those in Government bonds have risen by about 6.5 per cent.
	That is what has happened over a 30 or 40-year horizon. There have been wild variations within that, but the people who run pension schemes should fund for long-term liabilities. At the moment, people in both the public and private sectors are paying the price for tolerating wild valuations that are merely snapshots in time and bear no relation to what is likely to happen over a long period.
	The adverse effect of longevity means that schemes must be adjusted for the increase in people's lifetimes. That can achieved in only one logical way, and that is by increasing retirement ages in line with the increase in longevity so that people who live a long time fund the cost of receiving their pension provision over a longer time than was originally anticipated. They will have to wait a little longer before they draw their pensions and if they choose, for whatever reason, to take their pensions early they will suffer a diminution in what they get. Obviously, people who are seriously ill can take sickness retirement, which can be covered through insurance.
	That is how schemes should be structured. Our scheme is not so structured, however, and neither are most private sector schemes.
	Last year, the Government said that costs were rising and might rise still further. Without taking into account what they were having to pay to make up the deficits that had been allowed to accrue, they sought to cap the Government contribution at 20 per cent. The House debated that proposal, and accepted that there would have to be some capping of the Government contribution to protect the taxpayer. We then had to look at what we might do thereafter.
	More than a year ago the Government said that they would instruct the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at the issue, and to make recommendations to the Government and the House about how the scheme might be amended for the future. If they had issued that instruction, we might have had the SSRB report before us today, as we debate what is almost a crisis adjustment. Sadly, for reasons that I can only begin to guess at, the Government did not in fact instruct the SSRB until earlier this year.
	The Government's proposal before the House today has an air of crisis about it, in that it says that, if something is not done, they will go over the 20 per cent. limit, backdated to 1 April. The amendment takes a further step backwards, and adopts the approach that we would have had were we looking at the matter a year ago. It will not solve the problem that I have identified, for which the Government will have to come up with something after the end of the debate today.
	One other element to which I should refer is the proposed removal of the rights of hon. Members who have been here since before 1989 and who have reached the limit of their contributions under our scheme to continue making pension contributions after they have reached the age of 65. That will have an impact, which relates to what the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said, in that it will produce an additional 1.2 per cent. of savings.
	The trustees have considered that point, as we have considered many other proposalslargely produced by usto reduce the cost of the scheme. It was at the initiative of the trustees that the right to retire before 65 without penalty was removed. We have also considerably tightened the rules on early retirement for ill health. We think that in the past there may have been some abuses, which were expensive, although nothing like the abuses in some other areas of the public sector. Nevertheless, the change will produce significant savings. We are still waiting for the Government to implement it and we are slightly surprised that it was not included in the motion.
	There is no question but that the trustees would try to obstruct reasonable changes. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is not entirely happy with the situation, but it must be remembered that Members who wish to contribute further sums towards their retirement have other avenues for doing so, albeit on a money purchase basis.

John Butterfill: It is my understanding that Members affected by the change would not be able to continue making contributions, but their rights under the scheme will continue to be safeguarded. The only change for my hon. Friend would be that if he wished to continue saving for his retirement, he would be unable to do it through the parliamentary scheme but there would be opportunities for him to do so elsewhere without losing his rights as a member of the scheme.
	The saving is about 1.2 per cent. The object of the changes proposed by the Government is to save rather more than that. The figures go from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for those on 1/40th of final salary, from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for those on 1/50th and from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for those on 1/60th. That is all fairly transparent, and means that Members will be paying considerably more this year, because the change will be backdated to last April. On that basis, for those on the upper level scheme, the net cost would have been about 60 a month. If the Government accept the Liberal Democrat proposal or something similar, the amount could double and the cost would be about 120 a month to Members.
	There may be other ways of dealing with the situation. My view is that the simplest way by far would be to increase the retirement age. The Government Actuary has said clearly that the entire cost of what we now seek to fund relates to increased longevity. We could thus conclude that if the change relates to longevity we must increase the retirement age to pay for it, without going through complex shenanigans to change this or that contribution. Changing the retirement age would be a very simple solution.
	There is a significant read-on to other defined benefit schemes, whether in the private or public sector. The public have to understand that increased longevity means that more will have to be paid into pension schemes. There might be an argument about who pays but, inevitably, that is what must happen. However, the same effect could be achieved by raising the date of retirement.
	Let me say a few other things about the scheme because all sorts of aspects of its nature are misunderstood by not only the general public, but even apparently well-informed members of the actuarial profession. Most members of the public think that ordinary Back Benchers retire on the basis of the Back-Bench salary, but they also think that Ministers and other office holders in the House will enjoy a pension based on their increased salaries. They think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will retire on a pension that is two thirds of his salary as Chancellor, but that is totally untrue. The Chancellor's pension will be the same as that of the humblest Member, except that the additional 10 per cent. contributions that he pays while he is a Minister will be reflected in a modest supplement to the pension.
	The only exceptions to that arrangement have been Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors and the Speaker, although I gather that some of them have said that they will not take the extra money. That is an honourable position, but individuals must make up their own minds. The public assume that our scheme is the same as every other and that as we rise up the ladder and reach more senior positions, we get a bigger pension, but we do not. That point needs to be clearly made because it addresses the biggest misunderstanding about the parliamentary scheme. That is not to say, however, that our scheme is not better than that of many of our constituents, but it is not quite as gold-plated as the media have led the public to believe, so it is important to get that on record.
	It is also important to put it on record that the level of the contributions made by Members10 per cent. with the 1/40th scheme for which most hon. Members optis almost unprecedented. I think that only the police pay more, but their payments reflect the fact that they can retire at least 10 years earlier than we can.

Barry Gardiner: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's correction. He is right that the pension is often perceived as a perk, but it is wages deferred. It should always be considered as such in calculations of the whole remuneration package. That is true whether we are talking about Members of Parliament or any person in the public or private sector work force. It is absolutely right that we should contribute to the costs imposed on the fund as a result of longevity. In so far as the proposals seek to achieve that, they should be accepted by Members in all parts of the House.
	I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. He said that actuarial calculations are a snapshot. It is particularly ridiculous for a snapshot taken at a time of global shares meltdown in 2008-09 to set the pattern for the future. Of course, the previous actuarial calculations related to 2005. He made the point very well that had the employer's contributions been maintained over that period, the fund would, in 2005, have been in a 5 million surplus, rather than the 50 million deficit that it found itself in. It is important to recognise that actuaries looking at pension funds always seem to take account of the good times, in terms of stopping putting contributions in, but of course it is precisely at the bad times that they reassess, look at the stock market and say that the fund has a much lower valuation than they believed it would have, so extra money has to be put in. Usually, that demand falls not only on the employer's part of the contribution, but on the employees' part, too. That is a way in which employeesI am referring not simply to Members in this House, but to employees who contribute to any pension fundend up being short-changed by that method of valuation.
	I wish to put a specific point to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. I am sorry if it caused her confusion and consternation when I intervened on her earlier. I will try to make my point more clearly now. She will note that whether the accrual rate is 1/40th or 1/50th of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution demanded is 1.9 per cent. In paragraph (1)(c) of the motion, which relates to an accrual rate of 1/60th of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution is simply 0.4 per cent. My question does not relate simply to the disparity between those percentage rates. It is based on a calculation of the respective total percentage contributions, which are 5.9, 7.9 and 11.9 per cent.
	I know that my hon. Friend wishes to write to me, and I am trying to lay out this question as clearly as I can in order to receive as full an answer as possible. On a 64,000 salary, those percentages represent respectively 3,776, 5,056 and 7,616. If she then calculates what 1/40th, 1/50th and 1/60th of that salary is, she will find that it equates respectively to 1,066, 1,280 and 1,600 in retirement.

John Butterfill: The retirement age is simply a target set by the scheme. If a member sought to retire before that date, they would suffer an actuarial diminution in their pension. That is the way it always works with such schemes, but the move to 67 years old, which I have suggested, is in line with what we are doing on national insurance-based pensions, whose starting age will go up over the years to 68. We have already recognised the need for that move on state retirement pensions, and there is no reason why we should not do the same thing with our own.

Steve Webb: I shall principally address the pensions issue before us, but I should like to place on the record my appreciation of the Science and Technology Committee, which has been chaired with exceptional ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). His whole Committee has contributed a great deal to the House, and I am pleased that it will be able to continue to do so until the general election.
	Amendment (a) stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I shall seek to move the amendment formally at the end of this debate, but I should like now to address the reasons behind it. I would like to seek clarification from the Deputy Leader of the House, who I hope has had the chance to seek inspiration, on the issue that I raised in intervening on the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). I apologise if I did not explain my question terribly clearly.
	The motion in front of us says that the Exchequer contribution will be 28.7 per cent.; that much seems unambiguous. However, page 25 of the Government Actuary's report published in March 2009 says that the amount needed to clear the deficit is 8.5 per cent. per year; there are two componentsthe amount for the recurring liabilities and the amount to clear the historic deficit, and the second of those is 8.5 per cent. According to my maths, if we take 8.5 per cent. from 28.7 per cent., we end up with 20.2 per cent. I am aware that that 8.5 per cent. was 8.7 per cent. last yearand 28.7 minus 8.7 is 20, so I can see why that would have appeared to be the right number. This year, however, it does not appear to be the right number, as 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2.
	I cannot see how what the Government's unamended motion proposes is consistent with the resolution of the House that the Exchequer contribution should be restricted to 20 per cent. I might simply be missing something; that is quite possible, given the technicality of the area. However, I hope that the Ministerperhaps with some advicewill clarify the point before the end of the debate. Whether the figure should be 20 per cent. or 20.2 per cent., amendment (a) is about this transitional year, prior to the Senior Salaries Review Body reporting on a more root-and-branch reform. I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said about increasing retirement ages; that is a good direction in which to go. Pending that, however, what should we be doing for 2009-10?
	We are all aware that the world has moved on. A 20 per cent. Exchequer contribution was first mooted two years ago, in 2007. That has been the backdrop to our deliberations for a two-year period, but we would all accept that the world of 2007 was very different from ours today. What seemed appropriate then as a cap on the Treasury contribution does not seem so now. It was a very different economic environment. That was not quite so before the crash, but we were certainly not in the full depths of the economic problems. The position of people in many other pension schemes was not as apparent as it is now, and public attitudes to the House were obviously different then.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We should not apologise for existing or for the work that we do, and we should not give an inappropriate impression of the pensions and benefits that we receive. However, many of us feel that the world has simply moved on so much that it is inappropriate in 2009-10 to ask the taxpayer to make any additional contribution to our pensions in comparison with 2008-09.
	It is sometimes suggested that that is a hair-shirt approach, but it is worth putting the issue in context. We are talking about the difference between an employer contribution of 28.7 per centor 20.2 per cent., which takes away the deficit bit for the sake of comparability; that is how I think it should beand 18.1 per cent. or 18.3 per cent., depending on what people think the right number is. In other words, we are arguing about whether the taxpayer should put 20 per cent. or so or 18 per cent. or so of our salary into our pensions. Such figures would be beyond the dreams of avarice for anybody in the private sector and for quite a number of people in the public sector. Occasionally we need to remind ourselves that although, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people right at the top of the public sector in certain professions have exceptionally generous pensions, their numbers are relatively small. The vast swathe of public sector workers retire on vastly less generous pensions than we do.
	One of the issues that has been raised is whether we should simply accept what review bodies say. It is a serious point; if we second-guess the independent review bodies and do a bit more of the hair-shirt, what is the point of those bodies? However, even those bodies accepted that we have to take account of the changing world in which we live.
	I want to quote what Sir John Baker said in June 2008. He referred to the 2007 Senior Salaries Review Body report, which referred to the Exchequer cost of the accrual of benefits for MPs being in principle limited to 20 per cent. But he also stated, at paragraph 63, that
	the best solution would be for the Independent Body to continue to consider MPs' pension arrangements bearing in mind the unusual career pattern of MPs
	that was the point that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made
	and the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.
	That is the crucial phrase. In other words, even the independent review body was saying that these things are not set in stone, and that the world outside, public sector pensions and the wider economy are moving on. We in this House should therefore have discretion not always to have to wait for the next independent review, which might take 18 months or might not be due to report for another year. We have to make a decision more or less today, and in a sense we are probably nearly three months late in making it, because whatever we do will be backdated to 1 April.
	Even Sir John Baker said that the independent body should bear in mind what is going on in the wider economy. Prior to the SSRB's report, we already know what is going on. Only this week, we had reports of the further demise of private sector final salary schemes, and it important that we as a House show that we know what is happening in the wider economy.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend might have missed the bit when I dealt with that point. The independent Sir John Baker says in paragraph 63 that we should consider not just the normal matters, but
	the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.
	In other words, we should not just take such decisions in a vacuum. He was talking about what the independent review bodies should do, but as we have to take an interim decision for ourselves, he has given us the authority to look at what is happening in the wider economy. That substantiates the case for saying that it is entirely appropriate for us to take into account, in our interim decision making, what is happening to public sector pensions, where retirement ages are rising, and what is happening in the private sector, where there are some dreadful things. That is only right and proper.
	Before concluding, I would like briefly to thank the 23 hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1389, which was the precursor to amendment (a). I am grateful to them all, particularly the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was the one Conservative MP to give his support, four weeks ago. I was grateful for the support of the other 197 last night, which was obviously what clinched things. However, I am also grateful to those hon. Members who were willing to go out on a limb, because I am aware that I probably lost my copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People in raising the matter in the first place.
	To reflect what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in his intervention, we need to move to a situation with pay and pensions where we hand decisions for wise and independent assessment over to those who are not seen to be partisan and who will take account of what is happening in the wider economy and the public sector, although it is also critical that we ask them the right question. I hope that we can reach that point after this interim year. I also hope that in responding to this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether she feels that the substantive motion hits the 20 per cent., because I do not believe that it does. However, I would also commend amendment (a) to the House.

Phil Willis: Perhaps it is time for a change of mood. I have listened to most of this debate, which has been about the changes to Members' pensions, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I have listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who bring incredible expertise to this area, for which the whole House will thank them, but at the end of the day, unless things are done independently of the House of Commons, I suspect that the headlines that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) constantly referred to in his contribution will continue, because journalists will simply wrap them up according to how they want to portray Members of Parliament. I thank those hon. Members for their contributions, none the less.
	I want to make a brief contribution to the debate in order to thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government for the way in which the machinery of government changes have restored the Science and Technology Select Committee to the business of the House. I believe that the Government made a mistake in 2007 when they got rid of the Science and Technology Committee as a separate cross-Government scrutiny Committee. That occurred because of the speed of the changes that took place when the present Prime Minister took over; the speed with which the Departments were reorganised took everyone by surprise. He certainly did not consult me at the time; had he done so, I would have told him that certain responsibilities needed to be protected.
	I am grateful for the speedy way in which the science Minister, Lord Drayson, responded within three days to the Leader of the House to say that our idea clearly needed support and that he supported it. I cannot remember a Minister responding to the Leader of the House in such a clear way before. That spoke volumes about how the House and the broader science community view the importance of science in tackling all the great global challenges that we face. It would be inconceivable for a Department the size of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with all its responsibilities, not to have anyone examining the very machinery that will deliver the changes. The changes could involve the environment, energy, the green technologies or the plethora of health reforms coming out of our laboratories and our pharmaceutical and technology companies. Without being able to scrutinise all those matters, the House, the Government and our nation would all be the poorer. I want to put on record our genuine thanks to the science Minister.
	I also want to put on record my thanks to the many learned societies and organisationsincluding the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and many othersthat did not just sit and say, Woe is us!, but wrote and lobbied the Government about the changes.
	Above all, I want to thank the members of my present Committee, the Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, including the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who was in his place earlier, for the enormous job of work that they have done over many yearsin some cases, since before I arrived here. We heard earlier about the distinguished contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to the Committee in its halcyon days.
	This is probably the only chance that I will have to put on record my thanks to Dr. Ian Gibson, the former Member for Norwich, North. I do not wish to comment on the circumstances in which he left the House, but it is important to put on record his enormous contribution to the House and to science, including his work in supporting cancer charities. He encouraged the Government to introduce cancer plans and followed that up. He also worked on embryology, and we should acknowledge that the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill was largely a result of his early work. I want to put on record my thanks to him, along with those of our Committee and, I hope, of the House, and to wish him well in his early retirement.
	The machinery of government changes have raised a number of specific issues for science and technology. The Leader of the House wrote a letter to me in which she said that re-establishing the Science and Technology Committee,
	with a clear understanding that it will pursue a wide-ranging agenda
	on science and technology across the House
	offers the best solution.
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House expand a little on that? I understand perfectly well why she does not wish to introduce new Standing Orders for a new Committee and instead to make all those arrangements under Standing Order No. 152, but for the Science and Technology Committee to work effectively, it is important that it has the power to scrutinise science budgets. The research councils spend the majority of the Government's money for pure science, and it is in respect of the protection of pure science that there is the greatest concern that the move into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might see a shift towards greater transactional science and the use of science for business at the expense of basic pure science. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on that.
	On the plight of universities, I am not betraying a confidence when I say that I had discussions this morning with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge university, Alison Richard. She expressed very real concerns about how universities are going to be scrutinised within this massive new Department. I fully accept that my Committee will be able to look at the research elements of universitiesthat is right and properbut issues related to teaching, undergraduate work, access to universities, how we keep our universities world class and so forth is a job for a Committee on its own, particularly given that a review of fees will take place and that the former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has committed to reviewing the form and function of higher education in the future.
	As for the structure, the new Committee will have 14 members. I smiled earlier when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) spoke about the Conservative party's passion for science. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is a glowing example of that commitment, as he has maintained a huge desire to promote science on behalf of the Conservative party, and I pay tribute to him. I say to the Conservative Front Benchers, however, that although there were four Conservative members of the Committee since 2007, only one has ever turned up for active participation. Two members of the Committeethe hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)have never once attended a single Committee meeting.

Barbara Keeley: That is a fair point and I will take it on board.
	We will return to the debate and give hon. Members a chance to vote on, or agree, the options necessary to achieve that freeze. We will, of course, later this year tackle the wider ranging reforms resulting from the review undertaken by the SSRB.
	We should end on the point that in future we must tackle the problem through an independent body. Like all the other changes that we are making, we should consult Members, but the matters should be decided by recommendations made by another body. We should not have to decide such things for ourselves.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
	 A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
	(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows
	(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and
	(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:
	
		
			 Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 11 
			 Science and Technology Government Office for Science 14 
		
	
	 B. RELATED PROVISIONS
	(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Business and Enterprise Committee and of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, respectively.
	(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Business and Enterprise and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, respectively.
	 C. LIAISON COMMITTEE
	(4) That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills' and inserting, in the appropriate places, 'Business, Innovation and Skills' and 'Science and Technology'.
	 D. EUROPEAN COMMITTEES
	(5) That Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) in respect of European Standing Committee C, 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities and Skills' and inserting 'Business, Innovation and Skills'.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you, from the Chair, advise the House whether this is a good issue to refer to the Procedure Committee? It seems that Back-Bench Members will be totally out of the loop in the time and place where the Regional Committees will meet.

Tom Levitt: I know that Members are anxious to get away and enjoy the lovely evening, so I will not delay us any longer than necessary. However, I do believe that traditional crafts in this country have had very little air time, so to speak, on the Floor of the House, and I would like to try to put that right.
	Outside the workshop of Mike Turnock, who lives in Whaley Bridge in my constituency, there is a shelter that is evidently home to a community of toads. That is not the purpose of the shelter, however. It is also where Mike keeps his pieces of 5 ft long, 4-by-4 beech woodthe raw material for his family business, which he inherited from his father. Mike takes the beech and, using a band saw, cuts it into strips of about 5 mm thick. He chamfers each end of the strip and places it into a steam bath. This homemade device, powered by the electric elements from four kettles, makes the beech supple and mouldable. Once the beech has been steamed and dried, he bends it around a jig built to his exact requirements so that the ends of the strip overlap significantly. The ends are then nailed into position in an adept and professional manner, using nails of exactly the right length, and the base of a garden sieve or riddle has been created. He then drills the requisite number of holes around the entire perimeter of the riddle, half in a horizontal plane and half perpendicular. These are the basis for the weaving of the sieve itself from steel wire. By the time the web has been created, assisted again by custom-made tools, everything has been finished off safely with no projecting ends and a rim has been placed around the outside of the sieve, it has taken him an hour's work.
	What Mike has created is a common or garden soil sieve, the like of which may be found in garden centres up and down the country. These are beautiful objects: they are rugged, good to hold, efficient and long lasting, and just so much nicer than the plastic equivalents that so many gardeners use today. In his father's day there would have been three or four men working in this workshop, and two or three similar workshops not too far away, but not today.
	The garden sieve is not the only type of sieve that Mike Turnock makes. He makes larger ones and smaller ones, ones with larger meshes and with finer meshes, and ones designed for separating cockles or shrimps from seawater or even rivets from sand in the Sheffield casting industry. The finest grade sieves are actually easier to make because the smaller mesh is bought in ready made from China. The finest food grade sieves also have their own demands from industry.
	I must declare an interest: my mother is now the proud owner of a garden sieve that Mike gave to me on the occasion of my visit to his workshop. Hon. Members may purchase their own from certain garden centres, although the supply is far less than potential demand, as Mike is the only person left in the country making these handmade sieves as far as I know. He only supplies garden centres in two regions of England.
	When Mike took on the business from his father, it was a going concern. It still is today: he is making a living and evidently loving it. After a few lean years caused by illness, he is now back in full production again. But Mike is 64. He and his wife are now looking to retirement and there is no one left to carry on this business, despite the potential that exists for increasing sales.
	The same is true just down the road in Sheffield at the last handmade scissor makers in the country. Other craft skills are in equally short supply, which is ironic at a time when premium products such as these can sell on the basis of their quality and command a good price. Perhaps fortunes cannot be made, but livings certainly could be made from an expansion of these industries.
	Indeed, figures produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport actually support what I am saying: there are 157,400 registered creative businesses in this country, and they have growth rates faster than the economy as a whole. The Crafts Council recently launched its Crafts Blueprint for creative industries, and said:
	New research undertaken by Creative  Cultural Skills has identified that craft generates almost 3 billion to the UK economy each year making it the fourth biggest sector
	within the creative industries
	after design, performing arts and music...Given that over 80% of the sector comprises small businesses employing 1-5 people, improving skills is essential to ensure this growth continues in the coming years.
	It went on:
	The craft sector has one of the highest employment growth rates (11 per cent.) in the creative and cultural industries (according to DCMS between the years 1997-2006) and the demand for craft skills has never been higher. Expanding entry routes into the sector, diversifying the workforce and enhancing leadership and professional development are some of the main recommendations in the Blueprint.
	In the same press release, Rosy Greenlees, executive director of the Crafts Council, said:
	The Crafts Council is committed to making the UK the best place to make, see and collect contemporary craft.
	Why did she refer to contemporary craft? It would be wrong to exclude the traditional crafts that organisations such as the Heritage Crafts Association seek to conserve. The craftspeople concerned include the sieve maker, the rake maker, the handmade cutlery maker and others. They do not necessarily make objects of beauty or of stunning magnificence, which seems to be the focus of the craft-based media, but functional, traditional objects that require just as much skill to make as well as requiring a true sense of heritage and basic human purpose. The arts media and crafts media seem fixated on the idea of arts and crafts, and on linking the two together. I want to make the distinction. I have nothing against artsnot at allbut they should not subsume the crafts in that definition.
	The Heritage Crafts Association was set up by, among others, my constituent Robin Wood, a pole-lathe bowl turner. The organisation believes that recognising the living heritage of skills offers great opportunities for education, community involvement and jobs and can even play a significant role in the tourism industry. However, what do the Craft Council and DCMS mean by the creative industries? Generally speaking, they mean the arts, the media and culture. They mean the conservation of buildings, artefacts and historical traditions. They even includeI very much welcome thistraditional skills related to the building trade, such as the production of lime mortar, stone roofing, thatching and stone walling. The National Trust, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have even created apprenticeships to ensure that those skills are retained so that their precious buildings can be conserved. I do not use the word precious pejoratively. They are precious buildings, and those skills need to be preserved to ensure that such buildings can be maintained in the best possible condition. However, it is the other craftsthose that deal with useful tools that man has evolved over 1,000 yearsthat I am interested in today.
	Outside the field of construction, support for such crafts is not what it could be, which is why people such as Mike Turnock cannot find the funding to take on an apprentice or someone to learn the trade and work with him long enough to take over his potentially flourishing business and expand it in the future, retaining his wonderful craftsmanship in our community.
	We all know someone called Smith, Turner, Potter, Fletcher, Barker, Cartwright or even Thatcher. Those were the names originally given to those people who founded the crafts heritage in this country. In 2006 the UNESCO convention stated:
	Any efforts to safeguard traditional craftsmanship must focus not on preserving craft objectsno matter how beautiful, precious, rare or important they might bebut on creating conditions that will encourage artisans to continue to produce crafts of all kinds, and to transmit their skills and knowledge to others, especially younger members of their communities.
	The goal of the UNESCO convention is to safeguard traditional craftsmanship by supporting the continuing transmission of knowledge and skills associated with traditional artisans, to ensure that crafts continue to be practised in their communities, providing livelihoods to their makers and reflecting creativity and adaptation. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister why, when 107 countries from Albania and Algeria through to Zambia and Zimbabwe have seen fit to sign up to the convention, effectively making intangible cultural heritage part of their cultural policy, the UK is not one of those countries?
	I want to turn for a moment to the Heritage Lottery Fund. It recently announced that 10 projects would benefit from a 7 million training bursary scheme. The projects involve archaeology, transport heritage, conservation volunteers, reed and sedge cutting and other schemes to help conserve things that are already there. It is very difficult to find examples of Government or lottery funding being used to create things from scratch or regenerate the skills that, like sieve making, are in danger of being lost.
	In High Peak, I have not only that last sieve maker but Robin Wood, who tells me that he is the last professional pole-lathe bowl turner in the country. Both crafts have been established for more than 1,000 years, but it is difficult to see how they will survive even one more generation. The Crafts Council has recognised this problem, and I have referred already to the blueprint that it produced with Creative and Cultural Skills, which was launched recently in the other place. In it, the council points out that many of the craftspeople involved in cottage industries are elderly and without successors to whom they can pass on their skills. In addition, many are sole traders, with little incentive to take on an apprentice without external funding.
	Many of these traditional skills are often referred to as rural, but in fact they are urban as well. An example of that is the scissor makers of Sheffield, to whom I have referred and on whose behalf my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has campaigned.
	It seems that only once these crafts are dead do they come under the remit of the heritage industry, as their products find their ways into museum displays and people take pride in their conservation and celebrate their memory. Why can we not give the same attention to the ailing small industries that create these iconic objects? Are not the skills as worthy of conservation as the products that they create? We assess the relative importance of protecting, preserving and finding new life for older buildings that we see as part of our heritage: why should we not take a similar approach to heritage craft skills, and allocate a budget to do so?
	I know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has rightly welcomed the Government's announcement of the 1.1 billion future jobs fund, and the positive impact it will have in the field. I know that, among other things, the fund will pay for 5,000 apprenticeships in the creative industries. I know that the wider creative industries are a huge sourceand potential future sourceof income for this country, as well as generators of employment. I also know that helping a single-person business to keep going from one generation to the next is not the sexiest part of the DCMS agenda, but it is vital.
	Making garden sieves is not going to bring this country out of recession, but it is a part of our tradition and it ought to have a future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us exactly how she will support the forgotten parts of the world of creative industries in the future.
	The responsibilities of DCMS include sport as well as culture, and I am sure that the Minister will not need to ask the Minister for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), about where some of the nicknames that we give to our football clubs have come from. However, let me remind her of the Blades in Sheffield, the Cobblers in Northampton, the Saddlers in Walsall, the Hatters in Luton and the Silkmen just across the hills from me in Macclesfield.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the spirit of the UNESCO convention that I mentioned. I ask her to put on record not whether she will be backing to the hilt these small businesses in the creative field, but how she will do so.

Barbara Follett: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak outlined some of the Government schemes to help single-person businesses, such as Mr. Turnock's, to attract and keep apprentices. For onceunusuallyfunding is not the problem. There is funding around, and there are a lot of courses; what we lack are people of any age who want to take up placements or apprenticeships in craft firms such as the one Mr. Turnock runs.
	There are obviously many reasons for that situation. Sometimes, it is down to young people not being able to see a clear career path. Sometimes, it is because a person does not want to be a sole trader, or part of a small business. Sometimes, it is because younger people want to experience the bright lights of the cities, and craft trades tend to be in rural areas. Sometimes, it is just because people do not know that the opportunities and jobs exist, which is one of the areas where the Government can helplocally, regionally and centrally.
	Overall, not many craftspeople have the time, or even the finance, to advertise what they do and to attract apprentices. It is a Catch-22 situation. Both the Government and the sector are very aware of the problems. This month, Creative and Cultural Skills published a crafts blueprint, to accompany and amplify the cultural heritage blueprint, which is a work force development plan designed to improve participation in the traditional skills sector. The success of recent television shows such as Victorian Farm, as well as the 20-year waiting list for allotments in some areas, indicate real popular interest in sustainable traditional practices, which could lead to an appreciation of the time and care taken to produce quality hand-made items such as Mr. Turnock's riddles.
	The UK is blessed with an extraordinarily wide variety of traditions and crafts. Coupled with increasing awareness of the economic, social and environmental impact of our current life styles on the health of our planet, there has been a resurgence of interest in traditional crafts and practice. We are seeing a revival of traditional crafts such as carpentry, knitting, crocheting, quilting and tatting, as well as an increase in the number of craft magazines and programmes. New technology makes some crafts easier and opens up a new and much wider market for quality hand-made products made by people such as Mr. Turnock.
	The Crafts Council supports Mr. Turnock's work, and the work of all the other people in the sector. The council organises events to showcase crafts. English Heritage helps to fund the very popular heritage open days and festivals of archaeology, which as well as opening up buildings to the public also promote traditional crafts and activities.
	Crafts, as a skill, fall under several central Government Departments. The Department for Communities and Local Government is very keen on them because it believes that maintaining traditional skills in a community helps to define and shape local identity. It knows that a shortage of skilled people can hold up planning applications for historical buildings. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment published its Skills to grow report in partnership with 15 national bodies, including Lantra, which is the sector skills council for the land-based sector that focuses on horticultural green-space skills.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is responsible for sector skills councils such as CABE. It provides a great deal of support for small businesses that are involved in craft areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and its agencies, Natural England and the Forestry Commission, are supporting traditional skills through their rural development programme. My Department, through its non-departmental public bodies and the lottery, shares those common interests and backs the projects. For example, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded more than 446 million to 1,300 projects that have delivered heritage skills training in not only blacksmithing, textiles and paper conservation, but traditional building skills, such as using lime mortar and dry-stone walling. Its 7 million bursary programme for on-the-job training in 10 areas in which it has found evidence of a shortage of crafts has helped to train new masons, hedge layers and millwrights.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that English Heritage published the second Heritage at Risk report yesterday. Its finding confirmed the need for such skills locally and regionally. That is why English Heritage has been working with ConstructionSkills and the national heritage training group to address some of the shortage in traditional building craft skills. It is also why it has just signed a memorandum of understanding with the all-party arts and heritage group on maintaining standards and best practice in the built heritage sector.
	I am glad that Arts Council England is also involved. It will spend more than 6 million this year alone on organisations involved in contemporary or heritage crafts, including by giving funding of 2.8 million to the Crafts Council to lead on contemporary crafts.
	My hon. Friend talked about an international convention on crafts. I believe that he was referring to the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. The Government have no plans to ratify the convention, but we are supportive of its aims and spirit. We are keen that the rich intangible cultural heritage of the United Kingdom is properly valued and, when necessary, preserved. However, we are wary of legislating on such a sensitive matter as culture, especially in an area such as intangible heritage which, by its very nature, is difficult to define. Ratifying the convention and setting out strict definitions of what our intangible cultural heritage is, and might be, could be constricting and controversial. For example, there are issues surrounding languages and dialects in the devolved Administrations and in Cornwall.
	Whether tangible or intangible, however, our heritage is a marvellous asset that we want to protect and nurture. As a Regional Minister, I see a role for the regional development agencies and local authorities. They need to play their part, along with central Government and non-departmental bodies, in ensuring that our traditional skills are upheld and preserved.
	We do not want to preserve things for their own sake; we want to preserve them because of what they add to our country and to what it has to offer. As Minister with responsibility for tourism, I know how much that offer is worth to our economy every year. I also know how important it is to get people involved. My hon. Friend may or may not have heard of the recent phenomenon of yarn bombing: think Banksy meets the women's institute. It is guerrilla knitting in the public realm. Its legality is still uncertain, but its creativity is not. It is a wonderful example of a centuries-old tradition being made relevant for today. I hope that we can offer an opportunity to uphold the heritage that men like Mr. Turnock have preserved for us, and can make that heritage relevant and accessible to everybody.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.